Yes and no. There is the "obesity paradox" which has drawn so much attention, "obesity is the primary risk factor for Type 2 diabetes, yet sizable numbers of normal-weight people also develop the disease, and diabetes patients of normal weight are twice as likely to die as those who are overweight or obese." (NYT, 9/12) In study after study, overweight and moderately obese patients with certain chronic diseases often live longer and fare better than normal-weight patients with the same ailments. The accumulation of evidence is inspiring some experts to re-examine long-held assumptions about the association between body fat and disease. . . . To date, scientists have documented these findings in patients with heart failure, heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, high blood pressure — and now diabetes. Since whatever links I provide will be considered inadequate, I suggest that anyone who's interested in this google "obesity paradox".
db you specialize in derailing threads and posting meaningless garbage and you did it here. i have no idea why baron would want to pay someone like you who posts with such a low signal to noise ratio. its like like baron is wiling to pay someone by the post... instead of someone who really drives the opposition to post useful content.
It's a high correlation, there are the so called fit fat people, and of course the TOFIs. In the end it comes down to metabolic syndrome.
Clearly I haven't driven you to post useful content, so I guess I'll have to give Baron his money back.
Ok, so here are some points I'd like to discuss. First, at the 6:38 mark, he's talking about how the obese person is the victim and not the "perpetrator". This is the same ol' song about how people just don't take responsibility for what they do to themselves (or others, in some cases). "Oh, woe is me. I have a slow metabolism, I guess I'll just have some more ice cream." Then he points out how the kids don't choose to be obese. Of course they don't. But they don't understand that activity is what they need, not sitting in front of the Xbox or TV or tablet. That's fun to them. You don't expect a kid to have the discipline to go out an exercise if something easy like an Xbox is there to play. At the 7:24 mark, however, he brings up the 6 month old obesity spike. I've tried to find the raw data on that to better understand the study, but all I can find are articles and blogs on it with numbers thrown around and no source. I'm not doubting the study, per se, but if true, it does indeed indicate that there has to be something either in what those infants are taking in (formula, etc) or there really is some sort of chemical change at work that is encouraging the production of more fat cells like the study (whose data I cannot find) suggests. That's the only two possibilities. At the 8:25 mark, he goes into the Leptin argument. The base of the argument is about how we're all eating more today (which he admits). Kids eating more, males eating more, adult females eating much more. His point is that Leptin, which tells your brain to stop eating, is simply not functioning the way it used to (or should). Again, this might be true, but it doesn't mean an individual can't go "you know, I don't need that 5th slice of pizza, even if my stomach is telling me I do." I mean look at the spike in soft drinks (10:39)! I haven't had a soda in years. Why not? I know they suck for my body. Fat guy at work has two Cokes (oh, but they're Coke Zero!) each lunch - can just imagine what he does at home. 13:03 - Texas size big gulp, doritos bag and snickers bar for 99 cents. What idiot who is trying to be healthy would ever buy such a combo? Answer - people who don't give a shit and want to blame something other than themselves (oh, I have a glandular problem!") 18:00 or so, the Fructose is a poison discussion. No argument from me - though "poison" is a bit of a strong word. @29:01 - "do you think this might have some detrimental effects on you?" Of course, but thus far in the argument there hasn't been one, single discussion on exercising and the burning of calories. I got to the 40 minute mark and he was still going on about sugars and the like. I will watch the rest later because it is a fascinating lecture. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. However, I'm going to say that not one time did he go into the burning of calories (at least up to the point I watched). So again, when you - and he - state that the first rule of Thermodynamics when applied to a human is not that calories in must be burned or stored is not true, that's misleading. There is obviously something at work with HCF and other sugars, but there is ALSO a significant factor of people simply not doing anything to burn off the weight they are putting on.
Here's something y'all might not have heard.... "Artificial sweeteners may lead to obesity". There is some evidence that artificial sweeteners (soft drinks?) may contribute to "insulin resistance". Dr. Andrew Weil recommends avoiding them, and I've come across more than one study which seems to implicate saccharin, aspartame, sucralose, et al in the obesity and diabetes epidemic. Who knew? I've been drinking soft drinks with artificial sweeteners since the days of Tab and Fresca. Seems the only thing safe to drink is distilled water... well, that and beer, of course.